Whether you'd have gone on to lose or not doesn't change the fact that you were vaaaaastly inferior for the period of the game that actually happened.

No this is silly. Generally people felt we had actually hit a par score on that ground. Your bowlers bowled better than our batsmen batted, for sure. But you can't say one team was better than the other in a game like cricket if you've only had one innings.

I'm not trying to take away from what Ireland did - I'm really, really, not. You should be proud of being the only team to show any fight against the world champs

Find it a bit ironic that English fans have been accusing Aussies of sour grapes wrt team make-up, and then going on to defend their loss against the Windies tooth and nail. The two games were - under the rules - won fair and square, and given that England finished the group stage with one loss and one NR, they were fairly lucky to actually move on. They obviously seized that opportunity with both hands, but they were hardly perfect throughout the whole tournament; no team was, clearly. Just accept it and move on, IMO.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

Find it a bit ironic that English fans have been accusing Aussies of sour grapes wrt team make-up, and then going on to defend their loss against the Windies tooth and nail. The two games were - under the rules - won fair and square, and given that England finished the group stage with one loss and one NR, they were fairly lucky to actually move on. They obviously seized that opportunity with both hands, but they were hardly perfect throughout the whole tournament; no team was, clearly. Just accept it and move on, IMO.

Not sure they're parrallel tbh. If you want to criticise eligibility rules and qualification periods thanby all means do so. The sour grapes is for criticising us for picking these players when they're available for us to select.
The DL issue is that we were shafted by DL. If were criticising the WI and saying they were diabolical and what not then fair enough, call us for sour grapes.
I don't see any issue in saying England batted exceptionally well against the WI only for rain and D/L to swing the game, disproportionately in favour of the WI.

Find it a bit ironic that English fans have been accusing Aussies of sour grapes wrt team make-up, and then going on to defend their loss against the Windies tooth and nail. The two games were - under the rules - won fair and square, and given that England finished the group stage with one loss and one NR, they were fairly lucky to actually move on. They obviously seized that opportunity with both hands, but they were hardly perfect throughout the whole tournament; no team was, clearly. Just accept it and move on, IMO.

Find it fairly ironic that Aussies keep bringing up the West Indies game having been thrashed in the final by a better side.Just accept it and move on.

Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'

Find it a bit ironic that English fans have been accusing Aussies of sour grapes wrt team make-up, and then going on to defend their loss against the Windies tooth and nail. The two games were - under the rules - won fair and square, and given that England finished the group stage with one loss and one NR, they were fairly lucky to actually move on. They obviously seized that opportunity with both hands, but they were hardly perfect throughout the whole tournament; no team was, clearly. Just accept it and move on, IMO.

Pretty much everyone agreed at the time of the Windies game that it was a farce so it's just pointless that it keeps getting brought up now

No this is silly. Generally people felt we had actually hit a par score on that ground. Your bowlers bowled better than our batsmen batted, for sure. But you can't say one team was better than the other in a game like cricket if you've only had one innings.

I'm not trying to take away from what Ireland did - I'm really, really, not. You should be proud of being the only team to show any fight against the world champs

But I can't buy into what you are saying at all

That's not even remotely true. Collingwood said the complete opposite after the game. If your point is that 120 wasn't as bad a score as it might have looked then you're right, but it was still well below par. Besides, the pitch looked perfectly fine when Irish players were batting on it .

Everything else is speculation, but that's just a lie. Why don't you look through the thread at the time and see how many English fans were saying, "yeah, think we got about par there"?

That's not even remotely true. Collingwood said the complete opposite after the game. If your point is that 120 wasn't as bad a score as it might have looked then you're right, but it was still well below par. Besides, the pitch looked perfectly fine when Irish players were batting on it .

Everything else is speculation, but that's just a lie. Why don't you look through the thread at the time and see how many English fans were saying, "yeah, think we got about par there"?

Okay, I take your point, it wasn't par, what I should have said is that people generally felt we had enough.